Transformational Leadership and Organizational

Effectiveness in Recreational Sports/Fitness Programs

thesportjournal.org/article/transformational-leadership-and-organizational-effectiveness/

U.S. Sports Academy February 15, 2008

Submitted by: Chin-Hsien Hsu, Dr. Richard C. Bell and Kuei-Mei Cheng
Abstract

The concept of leadership has gained a large amount of attention in recent years. This
paper explores the relationships between transformational leadership and organizational
effectiveness in the field of recreational sport and leisure. First, it reviews a discussion on
the problem of organizational leadership from the perspective of the transactional-
transformational model, particularly the arguments of researchers such as Burns and Bass.
It examines the components of transformational leadership, and then investigates several
approaches to the conceptualization and measurement of organizational effectiveness.
Finally, the controversy concerning the impact of transformational leadership upon
organizational effectiveness is discussed, and an argument is made that greater
transformational leadership seems to be at least indirectly related to a higher degree of
organizational effectiveness.

Transformational Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness in Recreational

Sports/Fitness Programs

Leadership has drawn great attention from scholars in various fields in recent years. Yukl
(1989) wrote that “the study of leadership has been an important and central part of the
literature of management and organization behavior for several decades” (p. 251). Paton
(1987), too, realized that leadership has become the most popular subject within the field of
sports management. Weese (1994) furthermore advised that some 7,500 citations on
leadership appear in Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership (1990). In an article on
sports management and leadership, Sourcie (1994) noted that quite a few doctoral
dissertations focus on “managerial leadership in sport organizations”. Earlier, Sourcie
(1982) had estimated that nearly 25 studies on leadership were completed between 1969
and 1979, as reported in Dissertation Abstracts International, while the same source shows
that 30 additional doctoral researchers employed leadership as the primary dependent
variable of dissertation research between 1979 and 1989 (p. 6).

1/6
There is great controversy over the definition of leadership and thus over approaches to
studying leadership (Yukl, 1989). The present authors, however, focus exclusively on the
transactional-transformational leadership model and the relationship between
transformational leadership and organization effectiveness. The paper looks first at
definitions of transactional and transformational leadership and the components of
transformational leadership. It then reviews discussions of the transactional-
transformational leadership model, particularly the differences between and relationships
shared by the concepts of transactional and transformational leadership. In addition, it
describes the four elements of transformational leadership.

The paper also investigates existing studies of organizational effectiveness and looks at
scholars’ varying approaches to organizational effectiveness. Following this, it discusses
the relationships between transformational leadership and organizational effectiveness.
Finally, through a review of related literature from the field of recreational sports and fitness
programs, the authors examine relationships between transformational leadership and
organizational effectiveness.

The Transactional-Transformational Leadership Model

Working from Burns’s earlier efforts (1978), Bass (1985) elaborated the transactional-
transformational model. As Yukl (1989) wrote, Bass offered a more thoroughly detailed
theory of transformational leadership that further differentiated transformational from
transactional leadership. Bass viewed transformational leadership from the perspective of
leaders’ influence on subordinates. Influenced by transformational leaders, subordinates
become motivated to surpass original expectations (Yukl, 1989). Bass argued that
transactional leadership and transformational leadership are “distinct dimensions rather
than opposite ends of one continuum” (Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996) Or, as Yukl (1989) and
Weese (1994) wrote, while transactional leadership and transformational leadership are
closely related parts of leadership, they remain distinct.

In addition, Bass viewed transformational leadership as an augmentation and extension of

transactional leadership. In his understanding, “[A]ll leaders are transactional, to some
extent, exchanging rewards for performance, but some leaders are also transformational,
going beyond simple leader-subordinate exchange relations” (Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996,
p. 294). Studies by other researchers support Bass’s argument both empirically and
theoretically, according to Doherty and Danylchuk (1996).

In his discussion of transformational leadership among the coaches of sports teams,

Armstrong (2001) laid out four main characteristics of transformational leadership: (a)
ethical behavior, (b) shared vision and shared goals, (c) performance improvement through
charismatic leadership, and (d) leadership by example (p. 44–45). Armstrong’s framework
is a simplified version of the components of transformational leadership provided by Bass
(1985), who identified those as intellectual stimulation, individual consideration,
inspirational leadership, and idealized influence (Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996; Weese,
1994). Intellectual stimulation refers to a leader’s capability to stimulate followers to
become curious and creative about thinking and problem solving (Doherty & Danylchuk,
1996; Weese, 1994). Individual consideration describes the relationship between leader
and follower in terms of two dimensions, developmental orientation and individual
2/6
orientation (Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996). A developmental orientation exists when leaders
“assign tasks that will enhance an individual’s potential, abilities, and motivation” (Doherty &
Danylchuk, 1996, p. 295). An individual orientation exists when a leader stresses “mutual
understanding and familiarity via one-on-one relations and two-way communication”
(Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996, p. 295).

Inspirational leadership refers to the transformational leader’s inspiration and

encouragement of subordinates, which creates emotional attachment to the leader and
greater identification with his or her vision for organizational goals (Doherty & Danylchuk,
1996; Weese, 1994). The final element is idealized influence, which is closely related to
charisma (Weese, 1994). Doherty and Danylchuk (1996) view idealized influence as “the
behavioral counterpart to charisma” (p. 295), with the leader’s traits promoting commitment
among followers in order to tap their full potential (Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996; Weese,
1994).

Organizational Effectiveness

Effective leadership has a positive impact on behavior within organizations, according to

many leadership researchers; transformational leadership’s role in improving many factors
of organizations is especially pronounced (Weese, 1994). The effectiveness of behavior
within organizations—the effectiveness of their performance—is known as organizational
effectiveness.

The concept of effectiveness is of great importance to an understanding of organizational

behavior (Chelladurai & Haggerty, 1991). However, organizational effectiveness is a term
that is complicated, controversial, and difficult to conceptualize (Chelladurai, 1987). It is
little wonder there are several different approaches to measuring and studying
organizational effectiveness. As Sourcie (1994) mentioned briefly, Chelladurai and
Haggerty (1991) describe four ways to measure organizational effectiveness; these
methods are the goal approach, system resource approach, process approach, and
multiple constituency approach.

The goal approach is the most widely used, according to Weese (1997). It assesses the
effectiveness of an organization in terms of its success in realizing its goals (Pratt & Eitzen,
1989). Regarded as the “most logical approach” to studying organizational effectiveness
(Chelladurai and Haggerty, 1991, p. 127), the goal approach nevertheless has its
weaknesses. Most obvious is the reality that an organization may have numerous goals
that may conflict with one another (Weese, 1997; Pratt & Eitzen, 1989). In addition, an
organization’s goals may shift over time, especially its short-term operative goals (Pratt &
Eitzen, 1989). Goal shifts may result from an organization’s interactions with its
environment, from internal changes, or from external pressures. When an organization’s
goals are “unclear, unstable, and conflicting with each other” (Chelladurai & Haggerty,
1991, p. 127), it becomes very difficult to measure organizational effectiveness using the
goal approach.

The third approach is the process approach, which focuses on organizational functioning
and integration (Chelladurai & Haggerty, 1991). Under this approach, an organization’s
effectiveness is viewed in terms of the smoothness and efficiency of its internal processes

3/6
and general operation (Sourcie, 1994). Weese (1997) pointed out that effective operations
of an organization do not necessarily result in “heightened organizational effectiveness,”
because the sum of efficient components may not lead to an efficient whole (p. 267). Thus
the process approach for measuring organizational effectiveness is also not without
limitations.

In light of the limitations and disadvantages associated with these three approaches, a
fourth, the multiple-constituency approach, was also proposed (Weese, 1997). Under the
multiple-constituency approach, the opinions of the various constituent groups of an
organization are considered in determining the effectiveness of the organization (Sourcie,
1994; Weese, 1997). Chelladurai and Haggerty (1991) discussed the differences between
the multiple constituency approach and the earlier approaches. They noted that the former
incorporates the other three within one model that “envisions the differential evaluation of
an organization by different constituents on one or more dimensions of effectiveness. . . .
[such as] productivity, resource acquisition, or internal processes.”

Organizational effectiveness is ambiguous in conceptualization and difficult to measure,

due to the fact that it involves multiple dimensions, for example goals, processes, and
resources (Chelladurai & Haggerty, 1991). To date, the multiple constituency model, in
creating a synthesis of the earlier goal approach, process approach, and system resource
approach, appears to best represent the multiplicity of organizational effectiveness.

Relation to Organizational Effectiveness

Efforts have been made to study the relationship between leadership (particularly
transformational leadership) and organizational effectiveness. There is controversy,
however, over whether transformational leadership has a positive impact on organizational
effectiveness. For example, Weese’s (1996) study of the relationships among
transformational leadership, organizational culture, and organizational effectiveness
showed no significant relationship between transformational leadership and organizational
effectiveness. Similarly, Weese (1996) and Lim and Cromartie (2001) found
transformational leadership not to relate significantly to organizational effectiveness. They
suggested that subordinates play an important role in an organization’s effectiveness.

Interestingly, in an earlier article, Weese (1994) pointed out that many who have studied
leadership have found “convincing evidence” for leadership’s importance to the “success
and survival” of an organization. He noted that transformational leaders, especially, “have a
positive impact on employee satisfaction, productivity, and organizational effectiveness”
(Weese, 1994, p. 188).

In addition, the studies by Weese (1996) and Lim and Cromartie (2001) recognized that a
significant relationship exists between transformational leadership and organizational
culture, while rejecting the argument that transformational leadership has an impact on
organizational effectiveness. However, both studies also recognized that organizational
culture has great influence on organizational effectiveness (Lim and Cromartie, 2001;
Weese, 1996). The implication is that transformational leadership and organizational
effectiveness do have an indirect relationship.

Conclusion
4/6
Leadership is an important but controversial concept in understanding organizational
behavior. Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) provided a theoretical framework for two aspects
of leadership, the transactional and the transformational leadership paradigms.
Organizational effectiveness is no less controversial than leadership, and there are four
approaches to measure and study it. The most comprehensive approach developed to date
appears to be the integrated multiple constituency approach.

While the existing studies of relationships between transformational leadership and

organizational effectiveness are controversial as well, it seems that leadership has at least
an indirect impact on organizational effectiveness. Further empirical research and
theoretical exploration needs to be conducted in order to gain better understanding of the
topic.

References

Armstrong, S. (2001). Are you a “transformational” coach? Journal of Physical Education,

Recreation and Dance, 72(3), 44-47.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free
Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and
Managerial Applications. New York: Free Press.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Chelladurai, P. (1987). Multidimensionality and multiple perspectives of organizational

effectiveness. Journal of Sport Management, 1(1), 37-47.

Chelladurai, P., & Haggerty, T.R. (1991). Measures of organizational effectiveness of

Canadian national sport organizations. Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences, 16(2), 126-
133.

Doherty, A. J., & Danylchuk, K.E. (1996). Transformational and transactional leadership in
interuniversity athletics management. Journal of Sport Management, 10(3), 292-309.

Ghorpade, T. (1970). Study of organizational effectiveness: Two prevailing viewpoints.

Pacific Sociological Review, 13, 31-40.

Lim, J. Y., & Cromartie, F. (2001). Transformational leadership, organizational culture and
organizational effectiveness in sport organizations. The Sport Journal, 4(2), 111-169.

Paton, G. (1987). Sport management research: What progress has been made? Journal of
Sport Management, 1, 25-31.

Pratt, S. R., & Eitzen, D. S. (1989). Contrasting leadership styles and organizational
effectiveness: the case of athletic teams. Social Science Quarterly, 70(2), 311-322.

Sourcie, D. (1982). Management Theory and Practice. In E.F. Zeigler (Ed.), Physical
Education and Sport: An Introduction. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.

Sourcie, D. (1994). Effective managerial leadership in sport organizations. Journal of Sport

5/6
Management, 8(1), 1-13.

Weese, W. J. (1994). A leadership discussion with Dr. Bernard Bass. Journal of Sport
Management, 8(3), 176-189.

Weese, W. J. (1996). Do leadership and organizational culture really matter? Journal of

Sport Management, 10(2), 197-206.

Weese, W. J. (1997). The development of an instrument to measure effectiveness in

campus recreation programs. Journal of Sport Management, 11(3), 263-274.

Yuchtman, E., & Stanley, S.(1967). A systematic resource approach to organizational

effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 32, 891-903.

Yukl, G. (1989b). Managerial leadership: a review of theory and research. Journal of

Management, 15(2), 251-289.

6/6